Um, they stated multiple times your iPhone apps will sync right over and be useable from day 1.

Are you implying they will block the existing Kindle iPhone app from syncing to the iPad, or is this just more "Apple is evil" speculation that never comes to fruit?

Yes, you can use the existing Kindle iPhone app, but will Apple allow a full-size iPad Kindle app? I would think they would but Apple could make a decision to protect the iBookStore, just like they did to block Google Voice.

I have never made any statement along the lines of "Apple is evil" but that doesn't mean they won't sometimes make stupid decisions.

They had non-contract refurbs over the summer for $99. As time goes on, volume goes up, technology marches on, the price will come down. It won't be long before an unsubsidized $99 3G is a reality. Heck, look at the price of the iPad - it's unsubsidized and almost half what most people assumed it would be.

That $99 refurb is still not $99. It's a refurb. And it still comes with a lenghty contract. The only fair way to compare phones is to compare same contract pricing or no-contract pricing. That $99 iPhone is often competing with a $0 Nokia smartphone or $0 Blackberry (which at least in Canada, are starting to really make a comeback because of the popularity of BBM). Now if Apple really pushes to get $0 iphones, things will get interesting. But with the iPhone opening up to every carrier, and cheaper alternatives like Android phones coming on stream is every carrier really going to be that interested in subsidizing iPhones down to $0?

As for the $99 unsubsidized iPhone. Well Moore's law might get us there. But then again, Apple has always refused to swim in the shallow end of the pool. And it's not like Nokia, or SE or Samsung or HTC, etc. will be sitting still either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichL

To take a cue from Steve Jobs, how are you defining "people"? Middle class Americans? 95% of the world's population live outside of North America and their desires may be very different from yours.

Let's remember that Nokia's smartphone market share increased 5% last quarter. Through their partnership with Psion, they invented the term smartphone. Yes, they've got some catching up to do but their brand is still exceptionally strong globally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocNo42

So, again, just how many years do you think people are going to tolerate non-smartphones? The market has 10 years, if that, left - period. That has to be pretty damn scary for the likes of Nokia.
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Yeah, Motorola invented the cell phone as we know it today (improving on prior work done by Lucent's Bell Labs).

Where are they now?

Success can be fleeting. Apple knows that too, more than most, having nearly died once before.

I'd argue that Nokia has the room to turn things around. Outside of North America, people rarely take on multi-year contracts or shell out for $600 phones. Despite what many AI fans might think, the US and Canada are the exception not the norm. This leaves plenty of room for the 60/70/80/90% solution. The near smartphone territory is most interesting. That's phones like the Nokia 5800. It's definitely not as good as an iPhone. But it's got some of the basic functionality, for a significantly cheaper price (pretty much free anywhere in Europe on a normally priced contract). That single model sold something like 3 million units.

In 10 years down the road? Who know? But somehow I doubt Nokia will be sitting quietly in the corner while Apple eats their lunch. I think it's pretty extraordinary and breathtaking to assume that Nokia's dead in the water simply because of the iPhone. That could be a contributing factor. But there's a lot more to the malaise at Nokia than just the iPhone. And they could have it all figured out in a year or two. Or not.

Aside from purchase price, another big issue with the iPhone in most countries is carrier exclusivity. That alone will buy plenty of time for Nokia. Not everybody wants to be with the carrier that carries the iPhone. Even in the US, for all the customers AT&T has captured with the iPhone, it's not like Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile have seen droves of customers leaving. Same in Canada for Rogers while their exclusivity was on (all 3 national carriers now carry the iPhone). There were many people for whom Rogers was just not a palatable or viable option and so an iPhone was out of the question. Not everybody wants to commit to x carrier (that too on a long contract) just to get an iPhone. That'll buy some time and space for Apple's competitors to innovate, which in the end will only benefit the consumer more.

You implied that it doesn't happen - I don't think you gave an anecdote; you just said people don't buy iPod touch for 10 year olds. I pointed out that it's happening even for 5 year olds, and parents are sharing them with 2 year olds (and buying toddler apps!).

Quote:

They compete in different markets. I would expect the iPod Touch to sell more than the Nintendo DS family. Nintendo basically has the kid as a captive audience from about 5-6 years old to about 10-11 years old. That's it. From there, the iPod Touch and the iPhone takes over, for life. I'd say that given the window they have, Nintendo has been quite successful.

Nintendo thinks they and Apple are in completely different markets. I'd say Nintendo's market overlaps Apple's, and Apple is stealing some of those sales (as well as sales from the Sony PSP family). At least in the US, younger kids look at teens for ideas.

Nokia will always have its dumbphone market. Apple can only outsell them by revenue.

And profit, and that's what counts.

Added: Forgot to add that forecasters expect the smartphone market to be growing at 30-40%, while the rest grows at 10%. Also, Nokia's average selling price last quarter for "dumbphone" was 40 EUR or 55 USD. Apple's average selling price last quarter for iPhones was 638 USD. Analysts think Apple is making 380 USD profit per iPhone.

Quote:

It'll be successful. But I wouldn't be that optimistic. It'll be a while for tablets to replace traditional textbooks. Hasn't happened so far with laptops, e-readers, podcasts on iPods, etc.

See http://www.openculture.com/2010/01/t...third_age.html
The iPod touch was studied and found useful for several things, includiing language teaching, but the screen was too small for many other educational uses. The iPad doesn't have that problem, and students can still carry it (they already carry bookbags.)

Quote:

As for business use. This is what I've been carping about. If it's more iPod than macbook, how can businesses use it to do what they want with it (like using it to take orders and make deliveries, or access patient records?). That can only happen if Apple is willing to let organizations make and run proprietary apps outside the app store framework.

Don't you know that businesses can already have internal corporate app stores for iPod touch and iPhone? The iPad will just allow for even more functional apps. And Apple just said that 70 of the Fortune 100 are working with iPhones, and more such stuff. See http://seekingalpha.com/article/1843...all-transcript

Quote:

Though number 8 was odd. Why would publishers give away free long term subscriptions? How are they supposed to make money with that?

We'll see. But I wouldn't bet against the company that pretty much pioneered many of the services that people use on the net.

Never said it was. But Apple does do a pretty decent job of keeping flash off its iDevices. I'll be less worried if they allow a browser on the iPad that does accommodate Flash.

Well any way google at the first sign of choppy water wall street will nail them bad
it is a one horse show >>30 40 50 % down.
People will sell it down to 8 x earnings,
They just stabbed apple in the back >>Big mistake

And an apple branded bing can gives ads away for free while selling other PEOPLE ad space on the same set of very very local pages >> starting a price ad war with google.
Just like GOOGLE gives away lots of internet MSFT type programs APPLE can do the same to GOOG.

As for Flash not being a world wide standard. You're right. It ain't HTML. However, there's no denying that it is all over the internet. And for the vast majority of people, we'd rather see the content (even if it's crap), than be left wondering what that damn blue block was. Don't I get a say in what I should or should not be able to see? It's enough of a pain, that many of my family members who have macs just use Google Chrome or Firefox.

Umm, Flash works in Safari on the Mac, unless you use a Flash blocker.

I'll say it again. Apple said that it has three platforms - Mac, iPhone, and iPad. They provide different functionality for differing use cases. Apple believes for each platform, the user experience is the best for that type of platform. Now if you want a say, you can continue to buy a Mac (or Windows or Linux PC) - this kind product has been around for almost 30 years. If you want an even simpler user experience and much less system maintenance, then you may want to turn to our newer choices - iPhone (3 yrs old) or iPad (just born this week).

Just so that every newbie that you interact with does not bring this up ad nauseam, I wonder if you might perhaps consider adding something to your signature? E.g., "Hey, get over it: you'll get used to the way I write" (I am sure you could say it far better than I just did!).

Yes, if a) laptops are counted in and b) revenue is the deciding factor and c) market penetration is not.

Steve chose a definition of his own (not exactly an industry standard definition) and with that particular definition the claim seems to be true. With another set of definitions it wouldn't. When you ask the street layman about what do you think are products of the mobile industry, you'd get a different answer than Steve's.

Yes, Steve chose to make a new definition, but some people are saying that he intentionally set out to mislead. Steve clearly stated the definition of mobile device industry; he repeated "by revenue."

As I said before, Jobs was speaking to financial analysts, who collectively are a dense crowd. They still haven't really understood Apple's subscription accounting and Steve was trying to hammer into them that Apple is a mobile device company - and it's been moving in that direction since 2001, when Steve said "the desktop wars are over. MS won." at MacWorld Expo.

He was also speaking to developers - the message was that Apple is committed to the mobile devices and is selling lots of mobile products so please write software for them.

Wow, this place really has some of the nastiest, most unpleasnt fanboys around. When you have to resort to playground name calling, you've automatically lost your argument. Sorry.

Nothing I have said is ignorant, it's all, shock horror, actually based on facts.

Fact - Flash is everywhere on the web. iPad does not support flash, therefore Job's claim of the iPad beind a great way to browse the web is simply untrue.

Fact - Multi-tasking has been standard in computers since the late 1980s. For a new computer not to have it, is an incredible omission.

Fact - USB is an interface common to virtually all computing devices. The iPad does not have a USB port.

Fact - You evidently have no argument, just cheap insults. Good night!

It is encouraging to read the negative postings here. Especially about the competition and feature obsession with Flash, multitasking and USB .. Notice i said competition? That was supposed to be a joke. The fact is that there is nothing like the ipad coming in the near term from anyone else, and what is coming will be offered later in the year (if then). Apple, amazingly, after talk of this device for years (?) has this so called appliance business all to themselves.. yet again. The 499 price point is a game changer and or stopper for the competition currently selling some portion of the overall under $1000 down to $500 PC market. If that represents around 150 million units per year, then the ipad might be scratching at 20% of that market every time a buying decision is made. that is just for starters!

The ramp up for the ipad is right out of their existing supplier base, and so supply may keep up with demand after the pipeline fills the already anxious early adopter crowd. The new applications for the ipad have mostly not even been highlighted yet - as there is an entirely new hybrid of existing computer users that are going to quickly transition into this device for a myriad of needs at work and for play that they had not considered before last week. The ipad seems to be taking the best features of the phone and touch along with replacing and disrupting the troubling weakness in the existing under $1000 net book or low cost PC market.

The big surprise is the low entry price. There is going to be some cannibalization of ipod touch growth. But the sacrifice is best made by the company making the ipod touch instead of a competitor! The ipad is the future, the touch and touch-less competitors the past. The average ASP will make it up in volume .. this is good change for apple and will be a net positive to growth of revenue and profit.

The real driver for the ipad is the awesome disruptive nature of the device against everything priced under $700.00 (why spend more?). The business model of all venders at the consumer electronics show that are (maybe "were") introducing net books or tablets to compete with the ipad is essentially destroyed. They simply can't compete with what they have shown to date - and still make a decent profit.

The game machine business model for Wii, Xbox or play station was already hurt badly by the Ipod touch, and is likely soon to be completely destroyed as a viable business model that pays a bottom line profit against the features of the ipad, and when that won't do it.. the touch can drive in the last nail in their coffins (downloading netflix films is surely not going to keep them above water!)

The key to the success isn't what the ipad will or won't do that the others already can do - but what it will do that they are absolutely unable to do. The applications coming to the Ipad already available immediately are a big blow to any competitor entering the market. With what was introduced at the consumer electronics show, I am lost to find anything that even smells like viable competition in 2010. What i see out there that the pessimists are calling "missing features" are hardly disruptive to Apple's business model. Instead, they are part of the "past" or easily bypassed with an alternative solution. that is what these same people are really crying about and clinging on to.. the past..

I recognize that Apple makes money from hardware. But is that model going to hold in-perpetuity?

What I find most interesting is the move by Apple into the internet space. They could have easily partnered up with Google to really do cloud computing decently. Tons of people use GMail, Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Search and Google Maps. Apple could have provided the platform, the OS and easy integration into Google's services. It wouldn't have to spend much to integrate into Google. And would have benefited immensely from all of Googles "content" if you will.

Instead, they chose to compete with Google. First with the cloud (MobileMe). And now they are ramping up the fight by getting into maps and internet advertising, bringing Microsoft onboard with Bing search (and maybe maps), etc. Apple looks like it wants to get into the internet services game.
That's pretty far from hardware and operating systems and even basic cloud services.

Since I like the Apple experience, I normally would not be concerned. But when it's starting to look like Apple is throwing it's weight around, promoting its closed model onto internet services, I am getting more and more worried that Apple is starting to become another Microsoft. The flash incident. The Google voice spat. And the imposition of the more closed idevices model on the iPad seem to me to be symptomatic of a shift in Apple's behaviour.

My analysis of this maneuvering differs from yours. First, some facts that differ from what you wrote.
1. Apple has been in the cloud business since I think iTools debuted back in the days of the Bondi iMac circa late 1990s. MobileMe is a reboot of what has and still is a sideline service for its hardware.
2. Apple has been and still is, yes, still is partnering with Google on the Mac (Google is default in Safari), AppleTV (YouTube), iPhone (Mail, Maps, YouTube, and Google is default in Mobile Safari), and iPad (Maps, YouTube).

Now, interpretation (most of this is repeating others who know more than me)
1. Google moved into mobile OS business to jumpstart the use of its core Internet search business on phones - this goes back to 2004. Google also moved to protect itself from Nokia/Microsoft dominance of the phone industry, and the possibility that it's core search and ad businesses could get pushed out. Apple knew this before Eric Schmidt was made an Apple director so there is no animosity about this point.
2. Google decided to BRAND its own phone to protect itself from Apple's dominance of the touch-based smartphone, and the possibility that it's core search and ad businesses could get pushed out. This was after iPhone was launched, and was new news to Apple, coming after Schmidt was already a director.
3. If Apple wanted to compete with Google on cloud services, MobileMe would be freely included with all its hardware devices. It's not.
4. Apple moved into maps (Placebase) last year to protect itself from Nokia, which owns Navteq. When Apple launched 3GS, Google's licensed maps could not be used for turn-by-turn navigation, and Apple was at a disadvantage compared to Nokia. Nokia has since made Navteq maps free on its smartphones.
5. Since then, Google has begun using its own maps, which are used for turn-by-turn navigation on Android devices. Have these maps been offered to Apple? Or did Apple reject Google's new maps? If Apple rejected, was that to maintain relationships with the GPS apps developers like Navigon and AT&T. Don't know.
6. Apple moved into advertising to protect itself from what at that time were rumored Google branded and subsidized devices, and Google control of the multitude of free apps in the App Store. If Google can subsidize its Google branded devices via ads, it could offer a much better deal to carriers, and thus outflank and if it added a couple of more parts to its Android ecosystem, it could possibly destroy Apple's mobile business.

I think we've not yet seen enough to know who is doing what to whom, but at this point, I disagree that "Apple is choosing to compete with Google." (If you force me to pick, I'd go with addabox's response in 397.) Google is mega-powerful on the order of the 1980s/1990s Microsoft, and has expanded into many many businesses - OS, hardware, software clients - beyond its core search and ad businesses. In the same way that Google was wise to protect itself from Microsoft, it would be wise for Apple to protect itself from Google, and for Google to also protect itself from Apple.

(I am both an Apple and Google shareholder, but have more invested in Apple than Google because I've owned Apple stock longer than Google stock.)

Another update: MacRumors and Wired are reporting that Jobs said to all Apple employees about Google: We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won't let them, he says.

I think this explains why Apple has been talking to Microsoft about Bing since last October, which is when rumors of a Google branded phone began to leak.

Also about Adobe and Flash - a hot topic around here: Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy, he says. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it's because of Flash. No one will be using Flash, he says. The world is moving to HTML5.

It is encouraging to read the negative postings here. Especially about the competition and feature obsession with Flash, multitasking and USB .. Notice i said competition? That was supposed to be a joke. The fact is that there is nothing like the ipad coming in the near term from anyone else, and what is coming will be offered later in the year (if then). Apple, amazingly, after talk of this device for years (?) has this so called appliance business all to themselves.. yet again. The 499 price point is a game changer and or stopper for the competition currently selling some portion of the overall under $1000 down to $500 PC market. If that represents around 150 million units per year, then the ipad might be scratching at 20% of that market every time a buying decision is made. that is just for starters!

The ramp up for the ipad is right out of their existing supplier base, and so supply may keep up with demand after the pipeline fills the already anxious early adopter crowd. The new applications for the ipad have mostly not even been highlighted yet - as there is an entirely new hybrid of existing computer users that are going to quickly transition into this device for a myriad of needs at work and for play that they had not considered before last week. The ipad seems to be taking the best features of the phone and touch along with replacing and disrupting the troubling weakness in the existing under $1000 net book or low cost PC market.

The big surprise is the low entry price. There is going to be some cannibalization of ipod touch growth. But the sacrifice is best made by the company making the ipod touch instead of a competitor! The ipad is the future, the touch and touch-less competitors the past. The average ASP will make it up in volume .. this is good change for apple and will be a net positive to growth of revenue and profit.

The real driver for the ipad is the awesome disruptive nature of the device against everything priced under $700.00 (why spend more?). The business model of all venders at the consumer electronics show that are (maybe "were") introducing net books or tablets to compete with the ipad is essentially destroyed. They simply can't compete with what they have shown to date - and still make a decent profit.

The game machine business model for Wii, Xbox or play station was already hurt badly by the Ipod touch, and is likely soon to be completely destroyed as a viable business model that pays a bottom line profit against the features of the ipad, and when that won't do it.. the touch can drive in the last nail in their coffins (downloading netflix films is surely not going to keep them above water!)

The key to the success isn't what the ipad will or won't do that the others already can do - but what it will do that they are absolutely unable to do. The applications coming to the Ipad already available immediately are a big blow to any competitor entering the market. With what was introduced at the consumer electronics show, I am lost to find anything that even smells like viable competition in 2010. What i see out there that the pessimists are calling "missing features" are hardly disruptive to Apple's business model. Instead, they are part of the "past" or easily bypassed with an alternative solution. that is what these same people are really crying about and clinging on to.. the past..

Excellent post. The missing things were missing on the iPod touch and iPhone, and the consumers really didn't care.

That $99 refurb is still not $99. It's a refurb. And it still comes with a lenghty contract. The only fair way to compare phones is to compare same contract pricing or no-contract pricing. That $99 iPhone is often competing with a $0 Nokia smartphone or $0 Blackberry (which at least in Canada, are starting to really make a comeback because of the popularity of BBM). Now if Apple really pushes to get $0 iphones, things will get interesting. But with the iPhone opening up to every carrier, and cheaper alternatives like Android phones coming on stream is every carrier really going to be that interested in subsidizing iPhones down to $0?

You don't quite seem to understand how subsidizing works. Let's say on a $99 iPhone, Apple gets a $350 subsidy. On a $0 iPhone, Apple will still get the same $350 subsidy. But Apple will be able to do this because it's willing to forgo the $99 from the consumer because it either costs less to make or Apple is willing to take less profit. With many of the same components being used in iPods, iPod touches, and iPads, Apple is likely getting even more favorable volume pricing than before.

Now, Nokia could be asking only for a $250 subsidy on a $0 Nokia phone. That would be its advantage. But if it doesn't sell, then the carrier is unhappy. So the question is will a $350 iPhone be in more demand than a $250 Nokia?

Quote:

I'd argue that Nokia has the room to turn things around.

Of course, but their efforts over the last three years to create a flagship phone that is as attractive as the iPhone are pretty poor. It looks like that they're taking a different tack, going hard at the mid and low-end markets with phones like the E5800. We don't yet know if Apple is seriously going to go after those markets.

I think we've not yet seen enough to know who is doing what to whom, but at this point, I disagree that "Apple is choosing to compete with Google." (If you force me to pick, I'd go with addabox's response in 397.) Google is mega-powerful on the order of the 1980s/1990s Microsoft, and has expanded into many many businesses - OS, hardware, software clients - beyond its core search and ad businesses. In the same way that Google was wise to protect itself from Microsoft, it would be wise for Apple to protect itself from Google, and for Google to also protect itself from Apple.

(I am both an Apple and Google shareholder, but have more invested in Apple than Google because I've owned Apple stock longer than Google stock.)

Another update: MacRumors and Wired are reporting that Jobs said to all Apple employees about Google: We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won't let them, he says.

I think this explains why Apple has been talking to Microsoft about Bing since last October, which is when rumors of a Google branded phone began to leak.

I see it as logical for Google to enter the mobile business, because that's obviously the only way they could have protected their internet advertising business. Now the question is, could they have worked with Apple or is where we are today a logical conclusion. I think Jobs was being a little deceptive when he said that Apple didn't move into Google's search space. Of course Apple wasn't interested in that. But with Apple moving into the mobile market, I think it was rather difficult for Google to anticipate if Apple would co-operate or not when it came to browser design, especially with Apple not allowing outside browsers early on. Did Google have to make their own browser to protect their internet ad business or could they have worked with Google to protect their interests? It's tough to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark2005

Also about Adobe and Flash - a hot topic around here: Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy, he says. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it's because of Flash. No one will be using Flash, he says. The world is moving to HTML5.

I read the article. I am not convinced that Apple is entirely clean on its motivations on Flash. That said, Adobe is being really lazy. The question for me, as a user, though, is, am I better off without flash? I just don't think so. For better or for worse, flash is everywhere on the internet and it's likely to be that way at least for the life of a first or second gen iPad. That's bothersome. But if Apple does allow Firefox or Chrome on there, then I guess I got nothing to worry about! Guess, we'll find out in April.

....just a little letdown because I was looking to buy one....now I am thinking gen 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark2005

You don't quite seem to understand how subsidizing works. Let's say on a $99 iPhone, Apple gets a $350 subsidy. On a $0 iPhone, Apple will still get the same $350 subsidy. But Apple will be able to do this because it's willing to forgo the $99 from the consumer because it either costs less to make or Apple is willing to take less profit. With many of the same components being used in iPods, iPod touches, and iPads, Apple is likely getting even more favorable volume pricing than before.

Now, Nokia could be asking only for a $250 subsidy on a $0 Nokia phone. That would be its advantage. But if it doesn't sell, then the carrier is unhappy. So the question is will a $350 iPhone be in more demand than a $250 Nokia?

Except that dumbphones still outsell smartphones. We haven't yet reached the point yet where that $350 iPhone outsells all the $250 phones on the rack. And that entire model is still largely a North American construct. By and large phones aren't sold locked by a single provider with a long contract elsewhere in the world. When it comes to smartphones alone though, there's no argument from me. Apple is or on its way to being king in that market. But it is presumptuous to assume that the iPhone is suddenly going to knock off every $100 Nokia or Samsung or SE phone around the world. The model we North Americans are used to is simply not acceptable elsewhere. Had the iPhone launched in Europe first, I can bet they would have had a much rougher time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark2005

Of course, but their efforts over the last three years to create a flagship phone that is as attractive as the iPhone are pretty poor. It looks like that they're taking a different tack, going hard at the mid and low-end markets with phones like the E5800. We don't yet know if Apple is seriously going to go after those markets.

I think Apple fans look at this wrong. People who buy Nokia phones aren't looking for a once a year device release on a halo phone. They want devices that are released periodically. I'd look at the N97, the N900, etc. as stacking up nicely as a family against the iPhone. I wouldn't expect Nokia to come out with just one halo phone. Their customers would be severely disappointed if they did that.

You are right though about them targeting the middle and low-end markets more. And that's a good thing. Dumbphones will continue to be more popular than smartphones for years to come. Despite what Americans think, the vast majority of the world can't afford $600 or even $400 phones. The $100 dumbphones,and the $200-$300 smartphones are still a large market, especially when most of them go free on short contracts (1 year or 18 months).

I see it as logical for Google to enter the mobile business, because that's obviously the only way they could have protected their internet advertising business. Now the question is, could they have worked with Apple or is where we are today a logical conclusion. I think Jobs was being a little deceptive when he said that Apple didn't move into Google's search space. Of course Apple wasn't interested in that. But with Apple moving into the mobile market, I think it was rather difficult for Google to anticipate if Apple would co-operate or not when it came to browser design, especially with Apple not allowing outside browsers early on. Did Google have to make their own browser to protect their internet ad business or could they have worked with Google to protect their interests? It's tough to say.

I read the article. I am not convinced that Apple is entirely clean on its motivations on Flash. That said, Adobe is being really lazy. The question for me, as a user, though, is, am I better off without flash? I just don't think so. For better or for worse, flash is everywhere on the internet and it's likely to be that way at least for the life of a first or second gen iPad. That's bothersome. But if Apple does allow Firefox or Chrome on there, then I guess I got nothing to worry about! Guess, we'll find out in April.

....just a little letdown because I was looking to buy one....now I am thinking gen 2.

Except that dumbphones still outsell smartphones. We haven't yet reached the point yet where that $350 iPhone outsells all the $250 phones on the rack. And that entire model is still largely a North American construct. By and large phones aren't sold locked by a single provider with a long contract elsewhere in the world. When it comes to smartphones alone though, there's no argument from me. Apple is or on its way to being king in that market. But it is presumptuous to assume that the iPhone is suddenly going to knock off every $100 Nokia or Samsung or SE phone around the world. The model we North Americans are used to is simply not acceptable elsewhere. Had the iPhone launched in Europe first, I can bet they would have had a much rougher time.

I think Apple fans look at this wrong. People who buy Nokia phones aren't looking for a once a year device release on a halo phone. They want devices that are released periodically. I'd look at the N97, the N900, etc. as stacking up nicely as a family against the iPhone. I wouldn't expect Nokia to come out with just one halo phone. Their customers would be severely disappointed if they did that.

You are right though about them targeting the middle and low-end markets more. And that's a good thing. Dumbphones will continue to be more popular than smartphones for years to come. Despite what Americans think, the vast majority of the world can't afford $600 or even $400 phones. The $100 dumbphones,and the $200-$300 smartphones are still a large market, especially when most of them go free on short contracts (1 year or 18 months).

Vast majority of world for Nokia is North America, China, India, Europe and Japan. 3 of those markets love smartphones and other 2 coming along nicely with wanting more complex gadgets due to their increase in living standards.

It will be interesting to see how much money Nokia makes from low cost phones (dumbphones really America made up word) compared to their smartphones in major markets.

Ugh. C'mon. When I said 'right set of numbers,' I was referring to the numbers that Apple reported to the SEC. There is only one correct set of numbers there, period.

You are conflating two separate points of discussion: One, whether SJ was 'correct' in his definition of 'mobile'/'portable'/whatever, and two, given his definition, whether his numbers were correct. I was merely referring to the latter, and you know it.

Sorry If I got misunderstood. I know what you meant, and I acknowledge and agree to that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

On the former, while it is fair for Nokia to say "but we sell more, we have a higher market share," there is no need to disparage a conclusion SJ arrived at from a specific set of assumptions he chose to make. It would be, for instance, just as valid for SJ to say, "we have the largest revenue of anyone in sales of computers in the $1000+ category," or "we have the largest revenue from music sales to the eskimos" (perhaps I should say Inuit) or whatever.

The fact that his definition has people like you (or companies like Nokia) all in a tizzy tells me that it struck a nerve. Perhaps the larger point is, in a world in which devices such as mobile phones, PMPs, GPS systems, laptops, video-players, etc are converging, that might very well end up being the new definition of 'portable' or 'mobile.'

I believe we are in full agreement here. And if you read my previous post without a "anti-Apple poster"-filter, you'd hopefully see that as well. I'm not anti-Apple at all (owning several devices for very good reason). I just want to see the facts behind bold statements. And yes, when I suspect someone is lying or exaggerating and being smug about it, it does strike a nerve. This time, it was proven that there was no lie about it (just a different view ). But that is one of my character flaws (being extra-sensitive about dishonesty that is).

Added: Forgot to add that forecasters expect the smartphone market to be growing at 30-40%, while the rest grows at 10%. Also, Nokia's average selling price last quarter for "dumbphone" was 40 EUR or 55 USD. Apple's average selling price last quarter for iPhones was 638 USD. Analysts think Apple is making 380 USD profit per iPhone.

May I ask why you are comparing one subset of Nokia's products, to one phone of Apple. Why don't you compare Nokia's smartphones, or one smartphone to Apple, or have the average sale price of all Nokia's phones, after all Nokia doesn't separate them in their summaries?

Sorry If I got misunderstood. I know what you meant, and I acknowledge and agree to that.

I believe we are in full agreement here. And if you read my previous post without a "anti-Apple poster"-filter, you'd hopefully see that as well. I'm not anti-Apple at all (owning several devices for very good reason). I just want to see the facts behind bold statements. And yes, when I suspect someone is lying or exaggerating and being smug about it, it does strike a nerve. This time, it was proven that there was no lie about it (just a different view ). But that is one of my character flaws (being extra-sensitive about dishonesty that is).

Hulu, iPlayer, Facebook games, BBC NEWS, New York Times, Kotaku, Engadget, The Guardian etc etc. All rely on Flash. Are they all worthless?

As for bashing Nintendo, wow, you really are long lost to the Steve reality distortion field. Have you seen how many Nintendo DSs have been sold? And how many are STILL selling? I really don't think Nintendo are losing any sleep over iPhone OS gaming, at least not until you can give an iPod Touch to a small child and have him/her get lost for months in Pokemon, Zelda, or Professor Leyton.

You don't read tech news then. Thanks for the insults, but next time just bring facts, like Nintendo admitting serious competition in gaming from Apple:

how subsidizing works. Let's say on a $99 iPhone, Apple gets a $350 subsidy. On a $0 iPhone, Apple will still get the same $350 subsidy.

Just a slight clarification on subsidization.

It is the carrier that does the subsidizing.

A carrier that offers a phone with a contract, pays the manufacture of the phone full price. Note that full price is not necessarily the 'full retail price' that a single consumer would pay for the phone, but possibly a 'quantity discount' price.

For example:

Apple lists the iPhone for $440 retail.
A carrier offers the iPhone for $90 plus a 2 year contract.
The carrier pays Apple $440 (less a quantity discount (wholesale) if available.
The carrier recovers the $350 difference which is buried in the monthly fees over the period of the contract.

For a carrier to offer an iPhone for $0, he would still have to pay Apple their 'wholesale' price. In this case, the carrier either increases the monthly fees to recover the $90 difference or take a lower profit.

First you say it does, then you say it doesn't . Make up your mind. Have you actually ever seen the iPhone switch from Safari to Message or Email and back again in one fell swoop? I doubt it. Playing music and and collecting data are NOT running Apps as we know it on our Mac. Imagine if your music played on your Mac but there was no dock and you had to constantly relaunch the full app over and over again. Not pretty.

I have to agree with you here. Switching apps is bit more of pain in the ass on a Phone than on a Computer....

I can very easily see myself preferring to surf the web while I sit on the couch by using an iPad. If the device provides a good experience, it won't really matter that it doesn't do anything that I can't already do with another device.

Only time will tell, but I'm betting on it being a winner.

Totally agree. When I first saw the product, I didn't like the name, and I couldn't see myself buying it.

But then I realized that it fits my usage patterns! I typically do some emailing/surfing early in the evening on the iMac, but later as I wind down for the night, I plop down on the couch to watch TV and surf the web on the iPhone.

I could see myself just using the iPad in the den to take the place of what I currently use the iPhone for.

And I'm also starting to read more on the iPhone -- and the iPad would be a bigger screen for reading.

I still don't like the name though -- I think the "i" has played out now.

Trojans can come in all sorts of ways, in fact on the App Store right now there are Apps gleaming information and sending it online without your knowledge or consent.

You mean like Google Voice?

Because nobody has closed a computers OS before. Phones are one thing, but computers are designed to be open, until now that is.

Pure Koolaid. I want control over my machine.

If I don't like apps calling out over the internet, letting god knows who know exactly when, what and where I run a particular app, it's my choice to block that communication.

If Apple doesn't allow a app to multi-task or blocks the snitching app from the App Store, then that blocks my RIGHT to run what I want ON MY MACHINE.

Just like Google Voice...

Apple decides what is good for you and you can't decide for yourself.

Is that choice? No it's censorship and control.

Apple has been getting too buddy-buddy with China lately.

1. So malware is the big Achilles flaw on Apple platforms? where you been the last 15 years of windows virus history?
2. You should read the "terms and conditions" of each app. Thats the place that will tell you if the app will collect info and how will do it. It is up to you to accept the terms. NOBODY is forcing you.
3. Google voice... so its one rejected app of 140,000 apps, who cares? That is google strategy to undermine Apple & AT&T from inside. It is unfair for the carrier to have a hog that not only allows you to use the cellphone on its OWN network to be used to make calls without pay and also use data bandwidth to achieve it.
4. If you want free for all, get a freaking windows! where the software (windows) don't give a dam about you.. Just their own profit, go spend several hundred thru they years with antivirus, driver hunting and frustration.
5. Control...That is precisely that closed thinking that doen't allow microsoft to come out with original products, services, etc. They can only show from time to time an idea that dies as concept and thats it. No real commitment to what they build and how to make it better and hassle free for the user. Not everyone is a geek/it.
6. "Buddy with China" that one cracked me up! Still LMAO at it. Unless you wasn't at all aware that the every country in the world make business with China since hundred of years ago and almost all technologies in some way are derived from chinese you are just another blind anti comi more in the world. If you tear up your beloved windows machine at least 80% of it was made in china, not to mention your tv, cell phone, car parts, etc etc etc. maybe even your
underwear.
Please get real.

A carrier that offers a phone with a contract, pays the manufacture of the phone full price. Note that full price is not necessarily the 'full retail price' that a single consumer would pay for the phone, but possibly a 'quantity discount' price.

For example:

Apple lists the iPhone for $440 retail.
A carrier offers the iPhone for $90 plus a 2 year contract.
The carrier pays Apple $440 (less a quantity discount (wholesale) if available.
The carrier recovers the $350 difference which is buried in the monthly fees over the period of the contract.

For a carrier to offer an iPhone for $0, he would still have to pay Apple their 'wholesale' price. In this case, the carrier either increases the monthly fees to recover the $90 difference or take a lower profit.

The previous poster implied that for Apple to go to a $0 phone, it would put itself at a disadvantage to other handset makers, because it would need an extra $100 from the carrier. What I was trying to point out was that the carrier could still subsidize the exact same amount, with Apple taking the hit because Apple would simply reduce the retail (quantity discount) price.

I see it as logical for Google to enter the mobile business, because that's obviously the only way they could have protected their internet advertising business. Now the question is, could they have worked with Apple or is where we are today a logical conclusion. I think Jobs was being a little deceptive when he said that Apple didn't move into Google's search space. Of course Apple wasn't interested in that. But with Apple moving into the mobile market, I think it was rather difficult for Google to anticipate if Apple would co-operate or not when it came to browser design, especially with Apple not allowing outside browsers early on. Did Google have to make their own browser to protect their internet ad business or could they have worked with Google to protect their interests? It's tough to say.

I don't think Apple has a problem with Android being on lots of phones branded by other companies. It's the Google branded phone that's the threat referred to by Jobs because Google could use its advertising revenue to subsidize. Google could offer a Google phone to a carrier for $100 instead of $350 because they would make it up through ads.

So yes, of course, Android is needed for Google. And Apple is fine with that, and has known about it for a long time.

Prior to the rumor of the Google phone, Apple had given Google no reason to worry about having the default search position in Safari or Mobile Safari.

Quote:

Except that dumbphones still outsell smartphones.

Yes, in 2009, there were approx 957m dumbphones and 171m smartphones sold worldwide; smartphones were 15% of all 1.13b phones (total phones down 5% from 2008). But in the 4Q09, smartphones grew 30% yoy, and the same or more is expected for 2010, so forecast for over 250m smartphones out of 1.1b phones in 2010 (or 23%). In US, forecast is 30-40% smartphones sold in 2010 (currently, 17%). In Europe, the forecast is 50% smartphones sold.

In 4Q, the ASP of Nokia's dumbphones was 40 EUR or $55; Nokia sold 364m dumbphones in 2009 (vs 408m in 2008). The ASP for iPhones was $638; Apple sold 25m iPhones in 2009 (vs 13.7m in 2008). Nokia's dumbphone is about $5b more than Apple iPhone revenue in 2009. It wouldn't surprise many people if Apple reaches 40m iPhones in 2010; assuming ASPs decrease to $600, that's still 24b in revenue. Let's say Nokia recovers and dominates dumbphones so it again reaches 400m in 2010. Let's say its dumbphone ASP goes to $50 (same rate of decrease as in 2009), and you get $20b in revenue.

Conclusion: Nokia won't disappear overnight, but it really needs to sell smartphones, as that's the dramatically growing portion of the cellphone market.

Quote:

I think Apple fans look at this wrong. People who buy Nokia phones aren't looking for a once a year device release on a halo phone. They want devices that are released periodically. I'd look at the N97, the N900, etc. as stacking up nicely as a family against the iPhone. I wouldn't expect Nokia to come out with just one halo phone. Their customers would be severely disappointed if they did that.

I don't expect once a year releases from Nokia. You may think they're stacking up nicely, but the N-series phones have declined from 11.4m in 4Q07 to 4.6m in 4Q09 (vs 8.7m iPhones and 10m+ BBs). And Nokia is rumored to have offered a 10% price cut today. Their smartphones have the most advanced "features" but they are just not in demand in the US and Europe.

As for Apple cutting prices, look at the iPad - it's $629 (16GB w/3G). Compared to that, could Apple make a $299 8GB iPhone (free when subsidized)? It's not out of the question.

Like with everything else in capitalism, the price is what the market will bear. If the phone's software [which generate high margins (e.g. Microsoft!)] generate intangible qualities that get people to pay more for comparable hardware, then so be it. If people won't pay because they don't think it's worth it, the price will drop (have you heard of buy 1 get 1 free?)

Quote:

May I ask why you are comparing one subset of Nokia's products, to one phone of Apple. Why don't you compare Nokia's smartphones, or one smartphone to Apple, or have the average sale price of all Nokia's phones, after all Nokia doesn't separate them in their summaries?

If you read the exchange, Jetz was making a point about how Nokia could do well even without smartphones; I was just offering factual data. So here's the data you want: the ASP for all Nokia phones was 63 EUR in 4Q09. And Nokia has begun providing separate data in their summaries - that's exactly where I get the data from. Nokia said the ASP for their converged devices (i.e. smartphones) was 186 EUR in 4Q; and 190 EUR in 3Q.

If you just step back and consider the mindset that would lead to even bothering to write such an article, let alone run with it, you have to assume the iPad is driving the tech press slowly insane. Maybe they could just start running posts that say "It's a witch!"

They wrote the articles to sell advertising. There is no need to assume such bizarre motivations.